Ok, so on my team I have two stars (PG and SG), they score the most and I want them to be on the court longer than anybody, the rest of my starting lineup I want to be in quite a bit as well obviously, I used to go by minutes and gave my two stars the most (34+) and the rest of my starting lineup had 24+, while some of my backups had 14+, and some had 9+, and two of my players only had 4+. Basically, my bench would play over ten minutes each give or take and would have total points be like 4 or so and ruin my game, I want to find a way to keep my starters out on the court for a while without making them get extremely tired and still be out there making mistakes and stuff, because my bench just isnt good enough.

even with slowdown and good stamina I'm not sure you can get 34+ minutes out of a player in HD without reaching red levels of fatigue. Unless your bench is completely abysmal I would recommend slowdown and setting your starters to getting tired, maybe tired if the bench is really that bad. Generally even subpar bench players are better than guys at red fatigue I think. If you run fastbreak and can't go slowdown its probably gonna be a long season...

I'm just coming back to HD for my 3rd go around. One of the things that just absolutely irritates me to no end is the limited amount of minutes it allows guys to play, thus forcing big minutes for all your bench guys (and a much larger rotation).

In reality, most teams play 7-8 guys and beyond that it's only for a couple spot minutes or mop-up time. Of those 7-8 guys, it's really common to have 3-4 guys playing 30ish minutes and if you have 1 or 2 "studs" then they play 34-36 minutes and only come out for a quick blow each half.

If you even attempt to go with an 8 man rotation and keeping your starters in for 30 minutes in HD, you're going to get killed because they'll all either foul out (due to fatigue) or simply play like crap late in the game with turnovers and missed shots (again due to fatigue).

It would be nice if guys with good conditioning (stamina) could play 36-38 minutes regularly without much drop-off. It would be MUCH more realistic instead of this forced 10 man rotation where starters play 22-24 minutes and bench guys play 16-18 minutes and there's very little distinction between starter vs. bench minutes (and production).

Posted by graff on 3/23/2013 11:31:00 PM (view original):I'm just coming back to HD for my 3rd go around. One of the things that just absolutely irritates me to no end is the limited amount of minutes it allows guys to play, thus forcing big minutes for all your bench guys (and a much larger rotation).

In reality, most teams play 7-8 guys and beyond that it's only for a couple spot minutes or mop-up time. Of those 7-8 guys, it's really common to have 3-4 guys playing 30ish minutes and if you have 1 or 2 "studs" then they play 34-36 minutes and only come out for a quick blow each half.

If you even attempt to go with an 8 man rotation and keeping your starters in for 30 minutes in HD, you're going to get killed because they'll all either foul out (due to fatigue) or simply play like crap late in the game with turnovers and missed shots (again due to fatigue).

It would be nice if guys with good conditioning (stamina) could play 36-38 minutes regularly without much drop-off. It would be MUCH more realistic instead of this forced 10 man rotation where starters play 22-24 minutes and bench guys play 16-18 minutes and there's very little distinction between starter vs. bench minutes (and production).

Posted by graff on 3/23/2013 11:31:00 PM (view original):I'm just coming back to HD for my 3rd go around. One of the things that just absolutely irritates me to no end is the limited amount of minutes it allows guys to play, thus forcing big minutes for all your bench guys (and a much larger rotation).

In reality, most teams play 7-8 guys and beyond that it's only for a couple spot minutes or mop-up time. Of those 7-8 guys, it's really common to have 3-4 guys playing 30ish minutes and if you have 1 or 2 "studs" then they play 34-36 minutes and only come out for a quick blow each half.

If you even attempt to go with an 8 man rotation and keeping your starters in for 30 minutes in HD, you're going to get killed because they'll all either foul out (due to fatigue) or simply play like crap late in the game with turnovers and missed shots (again due to fatigue).

It would be nice if guys with good conditioning (stamina) could play 36-38 minutes regularly without much drop-off. It would be MUCH more realistic instead of this forced 10 man rotation where starters play 22-24 minutes and bench guys play 16-18 minutes and there's very little distinction between starter vs. bench minutes (and production).

Would it be more realistic to play shorter rotations? Yes, that would mimic more real life teams.

But what you're giving up to do that is, in my opinion, a pretty massive negative. The way things are set up now, things like depth, strategy and team building really matter. They're important parts of the game. And in DI, it also allows lesser teams that are veteran laden and/or deep to compete with some of the big boys. If the big boys only needed to go seven deep, it would just be the rich getting richer.

So while it would be more realistic, it would also be much worse for the game, and make HD way less interesting and strategic.

Using minutes can be effective, especially when allocating promised minutes or limiting playing time for youngsters uet allowing them an early spot in rotations. I have heard the negatives for so long but with certain teams I use them over fatigue. Has it cost me more than it has helped? I can't say for certain but I am comfortable with most of my results. I say experiment for yourself and see what you prefer.

Posted by graff on 3/23/2013 11:31:00 PM (view original):I'm just coming back to HD for my 3rd go around. One of the things that just absolutely irritates me to no end is the limited amount of minutes it allows guys to play, thus forcing big minutes for all your bench guys (and a much larger rotation).

In reality, most teams play 7-8 guys and beyond that it's only for a couple spot minutes or mop-up time. Of those 7-8 guys, it's really common to have 3-4 guys playing 30ish minutes and if you have 1 or 2 "studs" then they play 34-36 minutes and only come out for a quick blow each half.

If you even attempt to go with an 8 man rotation and keeping your starters in for 30 minutes in HD, you're going to get killed because they'll all either foul out (due to fatigue) or simply play like crap late in the game with turnovers and missed shots (again due to fatigue).

It would be nice if guys with good conditioning (stamina) could play 36-38 minutes regularly without much drop-off. It would be MUCH more realistic instead of this forced 10 man rotation where starters play 22-24 minutes and bench guys play 16-18 minutes and there's very little distinction between starter vs. bench minutes (and production).

Would it be more realistic to play shorter rotations? Yes, that would mimic more real life teams.

But what you're giving up to do that is, in my opinion, a pretty massive negative. The way things are set up now, things like depth, strategy and team building really matter. They're important parts of the game. And in DI, it also allows lesser teams that are veteran laden and/or deep to compete with some of the big boys. If the big boys only needed to go seven deep, it would just be the rich getting richer.

So while it would be more realistic, it would also be much worse for the game, and make HD way less interesting and strategic.

See I don't get that line of thinking at all, but maybe I'm in the minority?

I think the draw/interest in this game is to be as real of a "simulator" as possible. If that's true then I WANT it to be as realistic as possible. There should be "stud" freshman at D1 who are better than Seniors and leave for the NBA after 1 year. For that matter, the lack of underclassmen being good/better than some upper classmen in general is another huge gripe I have. Sure guys improve some over time, thus IN GENERAL seniors will be better than freshman, but in reality you can't just say Team A has 8 seniors vs. Team B has 3 seniors...okay Team A is obviously better. Here you can. If I recruit a "stud" frosh he should realistically be good enough to be a starter/top 2-4 type player from day 1, not be just "good for a freshman".

There should be guys who can play 36+ minutes (not a lot, but 1 or 2 per team maybe) without any drop off. So that coaches can use realistic 7-8 man rotations and strategies.

I don't think it takes away from the strategy of the game it all, it just CHANGES it. Of course it also puts a lot more emphasis on recruiting.....which is also realistic!

To me, this game just feels way too "gimmicky". It plays like a big random number generator more than a basketball simulator, where the only thing that matters is figuring out the best probabilities instead of doing things that might be unconventional but actually work.

Anyway, we'll see if it's any more fun this time for me. Hopefully it is because I think the IDEA behind this is really neat.

So asking for realistic stamina to allow good players to play 36+ minutes and for the occasional underclassman to be a better player than SOME of the upperclassman is now equivalent to them sending me on realistic plane flights for recruiting? Really?

there is no real coaching, and recruiting is basically an auction. if you only have to have 5 or 6 good players and 1 or 2 to play a few extra minutes and you don't have to manage their minutes because the starters are all playing 37 a game then there is pretty much nothing left in this game to try and figure out.

The current setup may not be flawless but it provides a pretty good balance of realism while still incorporating a little strategy and giving people some tools by which to try and outplay their opponents

What about being able to recruit those 1-2 studs better than other people? Better use of recruiting money/recruiting strategy or even sustained success to build your schools prestige to make those stud recruits want to come play for you instead of somebody else? That's not something that coaches can "control" here?

And what about setting your shot distribution? What about coaches gearing up specific defensive alignments to stop your 1 or 2 studs, and the good coaches having enough foresight to build a game strategy that would allow for 2nd and 3rd best players to "step up" in those games? That's not something we can control?

I feel like a lot of people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater by just shrugging your shoulders and accepting things that are just wildly inaccurate just "because it's a sim".

Posted by graff on 3/24/2013 1:47:00 PM (view original):So asking for realistic stamina to allow good players to play 36+ minutes and for the occasional underclassman to be a better player than SOME of the upperclassman is now equivalent to them sending me on realistic plane flights for recruiting? Really?

For what it's worth, of all the players playing in this years NCAA tourney only 13 of them averaged at least 35.0mpg. Of those 13, Harvard had 3, ND had 2, and Cal had 2. I don't think the norm is 36-38mpg, even for studs. Impressively, Indiana has 0 players averaging 30mpg. In real life there are several TV time outs that allow players to rest, a nuance that HD doesn't have (which is fine to me). I think there's a lot more strategy to having to play your bench and figure out matchups (beyond the starting 5). Otherwise, I feel like I'd recruit, get my 8 guys, set lineups, and never change anything for the entire season. It may not mirror real life, but only counting on 7 or 8 players a game would make HD much more boring for me. Just my opinion...